nuclear free

bsimic@fesb.hr

mhajda, I must underline some facts you have mentioned in your post. Do not understand me wrong, but I'm in favor of NPP's. There's no reactor which is 100% safe! You may make it 99.9999% safe, but there's always a chance... There is also a possibility ...

mhajda, I must underline some facts you have mentioned in your post. Do not understand me wrong, but I'm in favor of NPP's. There's no reactor which is 100% safe! You may make it 99.9999% safe, but there's always a chance... There is also a possibility that you fall down in your bath tub and break your neck. The NPP manufacturers do their best to minimize the possibility, so I think the Chernobyl type of accident is ALMOST impossible, and the advantages of the NPP's make that risk acceptable.

About the plane crash: Germans did some testing after 9/11. The old German NPP's have their containment buildings made and tested to withstand the fighter plane crush (such as F-14 Tomcat), but NOT for jumbo jet airliner (like Boeing 747). All new NPP's containment buildings projects after 9/11 are designed to withstand jumbo jet crash, but no reinforcement was made to any old NPP (due to high cost), so there's still a risk of containment building breach by terrorist attack. They hope, I hope, and everybody else hopes that the terrorists do not have the balls to do it.

The reactor may explode, but it is not the uranium fuel that explodes (as in bomb), it is the coolant that boils into steam, the pressure incerases and the reactor vessel actually explodes due to steam buildup. Actual design of EVERY reactor vessel has the relief valves to reduce the pressure, but the there was too much steam created in the 4th reactor in Chernobyl at the momenth of accident. It still puzzels me, and I didn't read/heard/saw it anywhere, whether the reactor lid blew up due to the excess steam or due to the fuel channels meltdown and rupture due to the lack of coolant. THE FACT: as long as there is liquid water (coolant) inside the fuel channel, there is no way the channel may get so hot to meltdown, only if all the liquid water had vaporized. The reactor was running at very low power (less than 10% of nominal) just seconds before the accident, and the operators were trying to keep it this low. The pressure relief valves were designed to relief all the excess steam at least in case of full power operation, and probably a lot more. Now, do you trully believe that the reactor power spiked to 10 times nominal BEFORE the top lid actually blew up, or was it simply the poor coolant flow through the reactor core?

People that are anti nuclear just dont understand the facts. Its that simple.

I dont mean to call anyone stupid. Maybe uneducated about nuclear physics and science is more appropriate. Greenpeace and sierra, twist facts, fear monger and do what ever they can to get people to hate and fear nuclear power.

Nuclear power if handled incorrectly can be very dangerous. But the design of the reactor, and the training of the operators can make a nuclear reactor 100% safe.

The rest of the world build nuclear reactors with containment buildings and two layers of safety. Any explosions a reactor can dish out will be handled by these containment buildings. Also any terrorist that thinks he can fly a plane thru a containment building will have a rude awakining when his plane vaporised as it comes incontact with 2 meter think super dence reinforced concrete.

Secondly these containment buildings probably would never have to be used because the design of the reactor is now one where a steam explosion is impossible. Also graphite moderators are no longer allowed. Now if water level drops due to operator error or equipment failure (there is also back ups) the reaction would stop because the water acts as the moderator. So the worst case senario is that the reactor material gets so hot that it melts into a blob that collects at the bottom of its containment area. It would destroy the reactor (probably forever) but there would be zero contamination to the enviroment.

Learn the facts. Know that a coal plant put more radiation into the enviroment then any nuclear plant. Know that you would take in more radiation standing infront of the capital building then you would eating lunch next to a nuclear power plant.

And also dont compair a nuclear power plant to a nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb needs to be made of 100% uranium 235 inorder to explode. Powerplants use uranium 238. It would be impossible to make a bomb or have any explosion using 238. The only reason 238 even has a reaction is by using a moderator and even then with a moderator the worst that could happen is it over heats and melts..

Posted by Guest on Mon 02 Jun 2008 10:12:05 PDT

Timi

shut up jason and you to wild space you booth no nothing my father was a freakin worker there and youve all got it wrong it was purposely done my the governmeant to see how they would cope in a nuclear war

Posted by Guest on Wed 14 May 2008 16:47:49 PDT

wildespace

The control rods (which absorb, NOT moderate the reaction) had graphite end tips because when the rods are removed to increase the power, the coolant would normally take their place in the rod channels. So those graphite tips were there to prevent the...

The control rods (which absorb, NOT moderate the reaction) had graphite end tips because when the rods are removed to increase the power, the coolant would normally take their place in the rod channels. So those graphite tips were there to prevent the coolant from coming in.

The actual design flaw was that, with the rods fully taken out, the graphite tips didn't cover the whole length of the channel - there was still a bit of coolant at the bottom. So when the rods started going in, that coolant was pushed out, increasing the power briefly before the rods themselves could do their job.

Posted by Guest on Sun 16 Sep 2007 09:52:08 PDT

Jason

Noone can ever explain what happens to all the nuclear waste that is piling up, I wonder why that is!? And all you people with bad grammar should go back to school, it' frigging annoying.

Posted by Guest on Thu 13 Sep 2007 21:35:09 PDT

Zappa

Nuclear power will eventually either save us or destroy us.. there's really no middle ground. Its an issue that must be dealt with. As we use up all the fossil fuels and burn all the trees, we'll have to get power from somewhere.

The...

Nuclear power will eventually either save us or destroy us.. there's really no middle ground. Its an issue that must be dealt with. As we use up all the fossil fuels and burn all the trees, we'll have to get power from somewhere.

The shame of it is, if you look at the US nuclear weapon stockpiles, there has never been an accidental detonation of a weapon, even though almost all of the weapons were built hastily with little testing. The reason is that no expense was spared when it came to safety. Nuclear weapons are hugely expensive not only to design and build, but copious amounts of money is spent yearly to perform maintenance, house, upgrade, decommission, etc. They take it seriously, and it has worked well. Even planes that have crashed and burned with live weapons onboard still did not detonate. They have safety features, and even more safety features as backups.

When you get into the power sector however, its too easy to create these Chernobyl scenarios. Privatization of nuclear power is the problem. Look at the Union Carbide "accident" in Bophal, India sometime. They did everything half-assed, as cheaply as possible, all for the sake of more profits. They built the factory in a residential area and maintained it irresponsibly. As a result, thousands of people got hurt. In the Chernobyl scenario, the Russian government was idiotic in running a state business in such a shoddy manner. The weak containment building, cheap design, cheap construction, lack of training, etc. One thing you can give them credit for is that they didn't make the mistake again.

The truth is, until nuclear power is taken seriously and managed based on safety rather than profit, there is no way it will ever be safe.

Posted by Guest on Mon 05 Mar 2007 17:01:25 PST

Zappa

That's probably not snow. Its probably some of the 2,000+ tons of sand and dolomite (ground limestone) dumped on the site to put out the fires. Its also difficult to determine how long after the dumping occurred that the picture was taken, since I...

That's probably not snow. Its probably some of the 2,000+ tons of sand and dolomite (ground limestone) dumped on the site to put out the fires. Its also difficult to determine how long after the dumping occurred that the picture was taken, since I doubt anyone stuck around to sweep up the mess.

Posted by Guest on Mon 05 Mar 2007 16:46:17 PST

Brad

just a little taste of whats coming sooner than you think

Posted by Guest on Sat 27 Jan 2007 14:27:27 PST

Daniel

There is a very good reason why New Zealand doesn't need nuclear power, that's because it only has 3 million people, compared with over 250 million in the United States and 80 million in Great Britain.

Posted by Guest on Tue 09 Jan 2007 18:11:30 PST

Sonny

To James at Trip wire. net Nz
I think you better realize you don't live in a Nuclear free Zone. as exsample do you have doctors and hospitols where you live? ,do you have dentist , do you have heavy industry. I believe you do have a military(GEE)!...

To James at Trip wire. net Nz
I think you better realize you don't live in a Nuclear free Zone. as exsample do you have doctors and hospitols where you live? ,do you have dentist , do you have heavy industry. I believe you do have a military(GEE)! now what makes you think your country will not produce radiation waste oops!
Where does all your radwaste go to ? too what country do you have it sent to be buried OOps, I forgot your nuclear free. Period...

Posted by Guest on Thu 16 Nov 2006 22:07:36 PST

Sonny

We must maintain faith in our education of the good and bad in nuclear power. The ignorant hysteria started when the power companies in these united states did not inform the public correctly about nuclear power and so valuable important time of...

We must maintain faith in our education of the good and bad in nuclear power. The ignorant hysteria started when the power companies in these united states did not inform the public correctly about nuclear power and so valuable important time of research and development in nuclear power were lost. This country turns out some of the best engineering students that can solve the most adverse nuclear questions, I know I have had the pleasure to work with some. Our society needs to question their wants before they condemn our progressive inherited ability to move forward in any endevor. Hysteria stands all things in time, it's movement in nowhere!

Posted by Guest on Mon 06 Nov 2006 21:43:23 PST

sarah

thankyou lk for explaning what positive void coeficeint is. i still dont quite understand but ill get my dad or one of his friends to explain it to me again. and phil i dont want to start a fight or anything but i dissagree with you on that we need...

thankyou lk for explaning what positive void coeficeint is. i still dont quite understand but ill get my dad or one of his friends to explain it to me again. and phil i dont want to start a fight or anything but i dissagree with you on that we need neuclear power, thats just my oppion though.

Posted by Guest on Tue 13 Jun 2006 21:21:37 PDT

Phil

A few corrections. In the Chernobyl reactor design, graphite blocks were the primary moderator. The control rods are meant to be neutron *absorbers*. Unfortunately, for some inexplicable reason, the tips of these rods were graphite. That meant that as...

A few corrections. In the Chernobyl reactor design, graphite blocks were the primary moderator. The control rods are meant to be neutron *absorbers*. Unfortunately, for some inexplicable reason, the tips of these rods were graphite. That meant that as the rods were inserted, the reaction rate increased before it would have decreased (if not for the explosion).

As for nuclear power in general, I don't think we have a choice. We need it. We've already seen the worst credible accident in a US-style power plant (TMI), and while it was an economic disaster for the utility *no one* was killed. Compare that to those killed in coal mining accidents. And then there's global warming.

Solar is a good idea too, but we can't bet on it scaling to all our needs anytime soon. Nuclear is the most practical, most environmentally friendly alternative we have.

And no, waste disposal is not a problem, at least not a technical one. It's purely a political problem, based on ignorant hysteria.

Posted by Guest on Sat 27 May 2006 22:26:50 PDT

shamoo

The nuclear reactor had a problem, when the control rods were inserted the reaction sped up then slowed this was the main problem because a scram all the rods were put in at once and since it was already starting to melt the channels that the rods that ...

The nuclear reactor had a problem, when the control rods were inserted the reaction sped up then slowed this was the main problem because a scram all the rods were put in at once and since it was already starting to melt the channels that the rods that go into the reactor became deformed, after that the rods got stuck and the reactor built up pressure. Then it blew.

Also in 1991 one of the reactors turbine halls caught fire. The closed that reactor down I think it was the number 1 but dont hold me to that.

emis

LaTeisha_69@hotmail.com

the reason the picture looks snowy is because the radiation got to the film and damaged it.

did they really work in it until rather recently. if no one is allowed to live with in 70km i wouldnt have thought they would be allowed to spend...

the reason the picture looks snowy is because the radiation got to the film and damaged it.

did they really work in it until rather recently. if no one is allowed to live with in 70km i wouldnt have thought they would be allowed to spend long hours working right in the middle of it all.

Posted by Guest on Fri 12 May 2006 06:07:05 PDT

n00bMonkel

Andrew, I don't think there are many alternatives to nuclear powerplants. Other sources of power are just too inefficent to meet the demands of modern needs.

Posted by Guest on Thu 11 May 2006 23:40:37 PDT

Andrew

anyone who uses nuclear power or wants it is incredibly stupid why use it when you have so many alternatives neclear power KILLS... i hate it go NEW ZEALAND

Posted by Guest on Sun 07 May 2006 22:38:44 PDT

anton_92_apa@hotmail.com

the same question is bothering me like it bothers ''Ikarlov''..... Who worked at the plant until 2000??? How did they work there, didnt the radiation kill them?

Posted by Guest on Sat 06 May 2006 09:34:55 PDT

vampiricon@abv.bg

I wish It would have been just a scilence - fiction book or movie! I begin to wander how The Strugarcki Brothers suceeded to describe "a zone", like the hell you see at the moment?...

Posted by Guest on Fri 05 May 2006 01:30:02 PDT

Juan

all you know that only about 3% of that radiation was released! The reading was at over 13000 in the area with 10-20 being normal! If that other 97% were to be released, especially with the wind drafts leading our way (toward USA)..... god forbid......

Posted by Guest on Wed 03 May 2006 11:09:23 PDT

lk

@sarah
positive void coeficeint is a positive feedback loop. Power increase leads to another power increase, and so it goes on in a loop...
Remember: in this reactor type, moderator is graphite core, so if water from the core is lost,...

@sarah
positive void coeficeint is a positive feedback loop. Power increase leads to another power increase, and so it goes on in a loop...
Remember: in this reactor type, moderator is graphite core, so if water from the core is lost, moderation (required for the fission) isn't really affected. reaction doesn't stop like in other water-moderated reactors.
Let's get back to the point: positive void coefficient.
It means, if power (temperature) in reactor increases, more water will be lost (converted to steam), and because this lack of water in the core, cooling and neutron absorption is decreased, which means higher fission rate, which means addidional power (temperature) increase, which means additional water will be lost, which means additional decrement of cooling and absorption, which means additional fission rate increment... AS YOU CAN SEE, it is a very bad unstable reactor condition (loop) which can lead to overheating in very short time interval.

@Constantin
The control room is intact.
Most NPP's I've seen have control room between reactor building and turbine building.
At RBMK-1000 design, control room is located maybe 150-200 m from the reactor.
It is located near the turbine hall, between reactor building and turbine compartment, maybe a bit on the right looking from this location, in this lower long building that isn't on this current picture.
Reactor no2 was shut down due to fire in turbine hall in 1992 I think, not due to instability because 4th react explosion. Fire damage on unit 2 was never repaired, so it stayed offline.

Posted by Guest on Tue 02 May 2006 15:32:43 PDT

James

Oh and yes the control room is still in tact, although you are only allowed in there for several minutes at a time.

james@tripwire.net.nz

They say that Chernobyl wont be safe for at least 1000 years... - That's what confirms for me that we shouldn't be playing around with nuclear technology.

And all that USA being so great - where does all the nuclear waste from the plants...

They say that Chernobyl wont be safe for at least 1000 years... - That's what confirms for me that we shouldn't be playing around with nuclear technology.

And all that USA being so great - where does all the nuclear waste from the plants go? Some of the high level nuclear waste has half-lives of longer than 100,000 years - though most is more like 10,000 years.
It has only been 3000 years scince the Egyptian Empire, how on earth is it going to get stored securely for that ammount of time, when the "modern world" will likely fall and be replaced many times over.
Thank goodness NZ is Nuclear Free.

Posted by Guest on Mon 01 May 2006 01:56:39 PDT

Constantin

I wonder where the control room is and is still almost intact. I heard on tv that the reactor no2 become unstable because of the explosion of no4 and almost to blow up, is it true?

Posted by Guest on Sat 29 Apr 2006 17:50:55 PDT

sarah

ok i going to sound stupid asking this but what is positive void coeficeint.

Posted by Guest on Fri 28 Apr 2006 06:42:53 PDT

lk

the question of guilt in this case is not so simple.
You cannot point finger at one person (operator) and say: he is guilty for this.

Posted by Guest on Wed 26 Apr 2006 11:21:49 PDT

Add Comment

Name

Subject

R
H
G
S
B
V

#

You can also use the colour name for example: [color=red]Your Text[/color]